MUTUC vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. L-32717
November 26, 1970
FERNANDO, J.
Facts: The invocation of his right to free speech by petitioner Amelito Mutuc, then a candidate for
delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He was prohibited from playing his campaign jingle on his
mobile units.
Such prohibition was premised on a provision of the Constitutional Convention Act, which made it
unlawful for candidates "to purchase, produce, request or distribute sample ballots, or electoral
propaganda gadgets such as pens, lighters, fans (of whatever nature), flashlights, athletic goods or
materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches, cigarettes, and the like, whether of domestic or
foreign origin."
Respondent invoked the point that said order is violative of his constitutional right to freedom of speech.
According to respondent COMELEC, the jingle proposed to be used by petitioner is the recorded or taped
voice of a singer and therefore a tangible propaganda material (falling under and the likes category),
under the above COMELEC statute subject to confiscation.
Issues:

Whether or not such prohibition is valid

Whether or not there was a violation of the invoked constitutional right

Held:

By ejusdem generis, general words following any enumeration must be of the same class as
those specifically referred to. It did contend, however, that one of its provisions referred to above
makes unlawful the distribution of electoral propaganda gadgets, mention being made of pens,
lighters, fans, flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches,
and cigarettes, and concluding with the words and the like. For respondent Commission, the last
three words sufficed to justify such an order. In the Act, the distribution of gadgets of the kind
referred to as a means of inducement to obtain a favorable vote for the candidate responsible for
its distribution.

There was violation of the Constitutional right to freedom of speech.

The intent of the law to minimize election expenses as invoked by respondent Commission,
laudable as it may be, should not be sought at the cost of the candidate's constitutional rights in
the earnest pursuit of his candidacy, but is to be fulfilled in the strict and effective implementation
of the Act's limitation in section 12(G) on the total expenditures that may be made by a candidate
or by another person with his knowledge and consent.

Respondent Commission is permanently restrained and prohibited from enforcing or implementing or

demanding compliance with its aforesaid order banning the use of political taped jingles. Without
pronouncement as to costs.